Where in the 2nd amendment does it say "for sporting or hunting purposes"?

[alkemyst]

Again, ordnance vs arms.

Well it isn't really defined at all there is a difference in the 2nd amendment, not to mention many rich land owners owned their own cannons.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Better to have it and not need than need it and not have it. Plus your whole premise is flawed, thin veneer of civil society was broken in Katrina, wait till we go broke and it's Katrina everywhere. Or not. I have faith in people to do the right thing, even more when people are armed.

I live in NYC. Can you imagine the following situation:

You are in a crowded subway train. Everyone is packing heat. A crazy person goes crazy and tries to pull his gun out. People get scared. About 10 people pull out their weapons to shoot this idiot down.

What happens next?

Can you explain to me how arming every American (sane and insane) is a good thing?

 

[IBMer]

I can't wait until the left forces states to honor other states' gay marriage licenses under equal protection... then we'll finally have concealed carry in every city and state in the nation.

Doesn't hold the same weight in court. Marriage is not a regulation. If DOMA gets repealed there isn't even a need to force states to honor, they have too because that is in the constitution.

 

[nick1985]

I live in NYC. Can you imagine the following situation:

You are in a crowded subway train. Everyone is packing heat. A crazy person goes crazy and tries to pull his gun out. People get scared. About 10 people pull out their weapons to shoot this idiot down.

What happens next?

Can you explain to me how arming every American (sane and insane) is a good thing?

Except this never happens. Ever.

Just like the "wild west" arguments liberals love to make about CCW, even though it NEVER happens.

Either provide evidence for your claims, or stop spreading the paranoia FUD



*edit*

Nobody is saying to arm every American. We are saying people have a constitutional right to arm themselves if they see fit, and you preventing them from exercising their right is absurd and unconstitutional.

Also, not many people I know thinks crazies should have guns. There should be checks to make sure felons and nuts don't get them. Stop assuming we are all for complete unregulation. Its just not true.

 

[jhu]

There is a difference between arms and ordnance. I suggest looking it up.

Ordnance has several meanings. Which one(s) are you referring to?

 

[QuantumPion]

I live in NYC. Can you imagine the following situation:

You are in a crowded subway train. Everyone is packing heat. A crazy person goes crazy and tries to pull his gun out. People get scared. About 10 people pull out their weapons to shoot this idiot down.

I can't imagine that situation because it is ridiculous and has never happened before. You obviously are not a gun owner, or probably have even ever seen a gun except in the movies. You have an exaggerated fantasy view of what it is like. So while your hypothetical situation has never happened, the opposite frequently DOES happen, where a criminal with an illegally obtained gun executes unarmed and defenseless sheep one by one, e.g. VA Tech.

 

[Veliko]

I can't imagine that situation because it is ridiculous and has never happened before. You obviously are not a gun owner, or probably have even ever seen a gun except in the movies. You have an exaggerated fantasy view of what it is like. So while your hypothetical situation has never happened, the opposite frequently DOES happen, where a criminal with an illegally obtained gun executes unarmed and defenseless sheep one by one, e.g. VA Tech.

Events like VA Tech happen frequently? Even if loads of other students were armed it doesn't mean it would have been any less horrendous.

 

[Macamus Prime]

I can't imagine that situation because it is ridiculous and has never happened before. You obviously are not a gun owner, or probably have even ever seen a gun except in the movies. You have an exaggerated fantasy view of what it is like. So while your hypothetical situation has never happened, the opposite frequently DOES happen, where a criminal with an illegally obtained gun executes unarmed and defenseless sheep one by one, e.g. VA Tech.

Fantasy - like the one fantasy where an invading force touchs American soil and it's a good thing we all had weapons; thanks for clearing that up.

Defending one's self is just fine with me. I can't argue that. But, when it comes to crazies; the checks and balances to avoid crazies getting their hands on weapons,... who is going to pay, monitor and handle that system?

 

[Macamus Prime]

Events like VA Tech happen frequently? Even if loads of other students were armed it doesn't mean it would have been any less horrendous.

Thank you.

 

[SlowSpyder]

We live in a country where we are at war every moment of the day.

We NEED RPGs, machine guns, armor penetrating bullets, explosives and conceled weapons.

Wait,... no we are not.

Oh yeah, what IF the police don't respond in time?!?!

Yeah, I need a big fucking weapon to drill lead holes through someone setting foot on my property. Granted, he was lost while looking for his dog at 1pm in the afternoon, but it was MY property and I NEED TO DEFEND IT ALL COSTS!!!

Now, if only there was a way for gun owners to be reimbursed for the 300 bullets they should be allowed to pump into trespassers,...

I live in NYC. Can you imagine the following situation:

You are in a crowded subway train. Everyone is packing heat. A crazy person goes crazy and tries to pull his gun out. People get scared. About 10 people pull out their weapons to shoot this idiot down.

What happens next?

Can you explain to me how arming every American (sane and insane) is a good thing?

You are creating these extreme events when we are talking about the right to own a guns. I doubt any of the pro-gun crowd feels it is right to shoot someone who is lost 300 times. I do think the pro-gun crowd feels it's ok to protect your home. You're speaking as if having a 30 rd magazine automatically means that I can shoot someone who is on my property.

NYC has pretty strict laws regarding guns, right? So obviously there are no shootings? A CCW will likely get a gun in the hands of a lawful citizen, the crazy on the subway doesn't care that he's not supposed to be armed.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I'll never understand the liberal argument that "If everybody has guns, then everyone will shoot each other. But if just the criminals are carrying, then it's okay."

 

[qliveur]

Events like VA Tech happen frequently? Even if loads of other students were armed it doesn't mean it would have been any less horrendous.

And just how many fewer innocent people would that fucknut have killed had there been one or more gun-armed sane persons there to shoot him?

 

[Veliko]

I'll never understand the liberal argument that "If everybody has guns, then everyone will shoot each other. But if just the criminals are carrying, then it's okay."

Has anyone ever actually said that or did you just make it up?

 

[Veliko]

And just how many fewer innocent people would that fucknut have killed had there been one or more gun-armed sane persons there to shoot him?

I don't know and neither do you or anyone else.

 

[HumblePie]

The purpose of gun ownership was to make sure the civilian populace still can defend itself in case the government went haywire. That has been the main reason behind the 2nd amendment. It is also nice that people are allowed to defend themselves, their families, and homes with arms as well. So it has many reasons to be there in the Constitution. But the primary reason is our defense against our own government or military.

Think of this scenario, however unlikely. Several military leaders, top dog generals and brass, decide they don't like the way the government is being run. They think they can do it better. So they cook up, with other sympathizers, a way to create panic and discord in our society so they have an avenue to seize power. By faking terrorist attacks while taking out head politician would be one way to accomplish this. Then they declare martial law and start cracking down with their control of the military Nazi style.

You THINK this is something that is out in fantasy land, but it has happened in history in other countries. It CAN still happen here. If regular citizens do no have access to arms, they have zero way of fighting back against such an attempt. Plowshares don't work against swords.

Again, better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it as another above has stated.

On top of that, if we are looking at the crime perspective, gun control has done nothing to curb crime. Just the opposite from every bit of statistical data I've ever seen. Responsible gun owners do not commit crimes. Which is why they are RESPONSIBLE. It's criminals that commit crimes and they gun control does nothing to stop a criminal right now in our society that wants to get a gun and shoot someone with it. Look at other countries that have MASSIVE gun control laws and regulations like the UK. You'd think that they even limit police officers from owning guns and ban everyone else that there would not be guns in the hands of criminals right? I mean they are an island and can control everything entering and leaving their country right? Wrong!

 

[HumblePie]

Has anyone ever actually said that or did you just make it up?

By using veiled reference to the Wild West, yes they are claiming just that. He did not make it up.

 

[Zebo]

I live in NYC. Can you imagine the following situation:

You are in a crowded subway train. Everyone is packing heat. A crazy person goes crazy and tries to pull his gun out. People get scared. About 10 people pull out their weapons to shoot this idiot down.

What happens next?

Can you explain to me how arming every American (sane and insane) is a good thing?

Subway? I'd grab him or crowd would bum rush him. People are not as careless as you seem to think. I've read a lot of self defense stories with firearms and innocents just don't get blasted. Have some faith in (law abiding) people.

 

[Veliko]

By using veiled reference to the Wild West, yes they are claiming just that. He did not make it up.

So your answer is "no-one has actually ever said that but I will pretend that they do so I can make a strawman".

 

[Zebo]

The purpose of gun ownership was to make sure the civilian populace still can defend itself in case the government went haywire. That has been the main reason behind the 2nd amendment. It is also nice that people are allowed to defend themselves, their families, and homes with arms as well. So it has many reasons to be there in the Constitution. But the primary reason is our defense against our own government or military.

Think of this scenario, however unlikely. Several military leaders, top dog generals and brass, decide they don't like the way the government is being run. They think they can do it better. So they cook up, with other sympathizers, a way to create panic and discord in our society so they have an avenue to seize power. By faking terrorist attacks while taking out head politician would be one way to accomplish this. Then they declare martial law and start cracking down with their control of the military Nazi style.

You THINK this is something that is out in fantasy land, but it has happened in history in other countries. I CAN still happen here. If regular citizens do no have access to arms, they have zero way of fighting back against such an attempt. Plowshares don't work against swords.

Again, better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it as another above has stated.

On top of that, if we are looking at the crime perspective, gun control has done nothing to curb crime. Just the opposite from every bit of statistical data I've ever seen. Responsible gun owners do not commit crimes. Which is why they are RESPONSIBLE. It's criminals that commit crimes and they gun control does nothing to stop a criminal right now in our society that wants to get a gun and shoot someone with it. Look at other countries that have MASSIVE gun control laws and regulations like the UK. You'd think that they even limit police officers from owning guns and ban everyone else that there would not be guns in the hands of criminals right? I mean they are an island and can control everything entering and leaving their country right? Wrong!

Problem is our pea shooters won't do much. Just gas resistive areas until they roll their militants in the next area, they buy a clue eventually. We need better if we're going to go up against some crazed General Ripper

 

[QuantumPion]

Events like VA Tech happen frequently? Even if loads of other students were armed it doesn't mean it would have been any less horrendous.

Mass shootings seem to occur once every other year or so. At least a few per decade.

There have been several attempted mass shootings thwarted by an armed citizen.

There has never been a case like that described by the original post.

 

[QuantumPion]

Fantasy - like the one fantasy where an invading force touchs American soil and it's a good thing we all had weapons; thanks for clearing that up.

Yup, just like ranchers in the southwest defending their farms and property from south American drug gangs, which happens on a daily basis.

 

[Veliko]

Mass shootings seem to occur once every other year or so. At least a few per decade.

There have been several attempted mass shootings thwarted by an armed citizen.

There has never been a case like that described by the original post.

You will need to do better than 'seem to occur' here.

Events like VA Tech are more complicated than mere gun ownership. Even if some of the other students were armed it is no guarantee that any of them would have actually been willing to shoot the killer instead of running in panic nor that they wouldn't have killed other people as a result.

 

[Pulsar]

Thank you.

Your strawman arguments and hypothetical situations are ridiculous.

By your logic, no one should have TV's. We don't 'need' them in that sense of the word, after all.

Also by your logic, everything that can be used to kill folks should be banned. After all, can you imagine what would happen if some psycho got in a car and ran down hundreds at a local fair? Ban cars.

Your arguments are based in fear and paranoia. You don't trust others, you fear them, so you believe you should be able to restrict them in an attempt to make yourself safe.

Yes, firearms are dangerous. They can also be fun, educational, and for many people who don't live in the bowels of New York, they are actually extremely USEFUL and NEEDED tools. See, not all of us live so close to our neighbors that we can hear them fart at night. Some of us *gasp* live in rural communities, have crops, and livestock, and other very very poignant reasons for having guns.

Come back and discuss firearms rationally with data-driven arguments when you aren't paranoid and afraid of all the big bad scary things that "might" happen.

It's really unfortunate that shorted sighted folks like you think that because YOUR life experience does lead you to want, need, or use firearms they should be banned. It's equally unfortunate that so many people like you live grouped together in big cities where you're all paranoid of what the guy next door might do if he gets a gun.

You're on equal footing with all the 'people' who believe that folks who drive upsized pickups and suvs are all gas guzzling capitalists destroying the environment. Absolutely NO clue because your life experiences are so miniscule. None. Whatsoever.

 

[Zebo]

You will need to do better than 'seem to occur' here.

Events like VA Tech are more complicated than mere gun ownership. Even if some of the other students were armed it is no guarantee that any of them would have actually been willing to shoot the killer instead of running in panic nor that they wouldn't have killed other people as a result.

People do it everyday. Shooting someone is terrible choice but if it's you or them I have faith in survival instinct taking over. Usually does. That boy went class to class hall way to hall wall for 15 min surely one student would prefer to live than die. My guess is the first.

 

[olds]

If you area actually interested in 2nd amendment discussions, try here.